Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1265
Location: Adelaide
quote:Originally posted by Philip:
It is so sad to see people losing their jobs because of dreadful decisions by the current federal government. (Just read about Daniel.) Their own predictions are for more people to lose their jobs. Their forecasts got revised to be far worse after ten weeks last time.
The job market will forever fluctuate.
Lets look at the graphs from last month http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-11/unemployment-figures-for-june/4813876
Now Howard was elected in 1996. AS you can see, the Liberals presided over a long period of unemployment rates higher then current.
You can not just blame Howard for this, just like you can not just blame Rudd for the current situation. The economy is restructuring and with that comes losses and gains.
It sucks for Daniel and all the others who have lost their job (Ajax was talking about all the troubles he has been having at the recent event) but just how would have Abbott done better? Based on his limited costed policies beyond criticism, I am not convinced he would have done much better (about equal to a very slight lead for Abbott but there is no way to test this).
Just to show the flip side, if Abbott gets in then my job will be at risk based on everything he has said about my work (including using false statistics a long while back to try to justify it.)
Got to see both sides of the coin.
quote:Originally posted by Philip:
The hidden jobless are the casuals who technically have jobs but just don't get enough hours to make ends meet.
.
There are always people who want more work. Some figures take this into account. _________________ Remember to trust me, I am an Engineer.
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
quote:
... if Abbott gets in then my job will be at risk based on everything he has said about my work ...
I don't want you to lose your job either. I can understand why you would want job security and pay rises every year. I would like that too. But I work in the private sector where you cut spending when income drops. I know my job could disappear at any time. _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:13 am
seanet1310
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1265
Location: Adelaide
I just mentioned it as there are always two sides to everything.
What makes you think employment will be significantly better off under a Coalition government compared to the ALP? _________________ Remember to trust me, I am an Engineer.
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
Did you see the graph in your above link? Labor left disastrous unemployment followed by a steady improvement by Howard. Labor gets in and things turn to poo. I know that some people think it is just a wild coincidence that every time Labor is in power everything goes bad.
Don't get me wrong. Keating did a lot of good in the early days of Labor. _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
Sun Aug 11, 2013 10:47 am
seanet1310
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1265
Location: Adelaide
There has been quite a few chances in the LNP from the last time Howard lead. He also had a good time towards the end.
I personally don't think you can draw the conclusion the increase is purely from the lack of liberals leading.
Early 2000's under Howard also had quite an increase.
FYI, I am not pro Labor, and it is highly unlikely I will vote for my local Labor member because I base my vote partly on the local member as this is the purpose of our political system. She has done little for the local electorate and has not been a good minister of her portfolios.
As for the senate, I vote below the line and I suspect I will have Labor above the LNP to help keep the LNP in check (Labor will be in check if they win house of reps by the current nature of the senate ) _________________ Remember to trust me, I am an Engineer.
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
quote:
I personally don't think you can draw the conclusion the increase is purely from the lack of liberals leading.
True. If it was just once, you might think it was just a coincidence. But, when we see a repeated pattern of poor economic performance under successive Labor governments, we are entitled to ask if it is more than a coincidence.
For example, QLD was in a strong financial position before Labor came to power at a state level. At the same time as the Liberals were delivering strong economic growth at a federal level, state Labor ran QLD into the ground. QLD had the mining boom and still lost our AAA credit rating.
quote:
Early 2000's under Howard also had quite an increase.
Yes. The September 11 attacks had an impact. _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:10 am
miles&Jules Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 19 May 2010
Posts: 3973
Location: ipswich QLD
We do have one of the best economies in the world, with a small deficit relatively speaking.
Oz didn't go into recession after the GFC (the thing conservatives hate to mention) ....we may have, if liberals were in, and picked austerity over stimulus. Like what happened in the depression of the 1930's _________________ Miles Blow - Julie Pitts
www.mulesfilm.com.au www.wombokforest.com.au
-Pickasso- Vivid Sportsman champion 2015
Wed Aug 14, 2013 11:22 pm
Philip Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
I feel sorry for Rudd. One moment his party is saying that he is the best person to lead them, the next moment they don't even want him in parliament. They knew exactly what he was like before they elected him for the second time. He should be given a measure of respect for the number of MPs who held their seats. The same seats that were in danger of being lost if not for his return. He already did the right thing and resigned his leadership. Give the man some respect. _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:32 am
Philip Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 18 Jun 2004
Posts: 3842
Location: Queensland near Brisbane
Unbelievably, they were talking of another carbon tax tonight. The carbon tax is being called a price on carbon. Aren't our electricity prices too high now? How many manufacturing jobs do they want us to loose?
The Paris Agreement calls on the world to spend 2.5 trillion dollars to decrease the temperature by 0.2 degrees. Could you imagine the good that money could do for people? _________________ So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems
Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:48 pm
Nick Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 11802
Location: Sydney, NSW
No amount of money will help people underwater. Better to spend some money now than try to have coastal cities flooded, desertification, wilder weather and famines later on. _________________ Australian 2015 Featherweight champion
UK 2016 Gladiator champion
Thu Jun 08, 2017 9:57 pm
Valen Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4436
Location: Sydney
Carbon price earnt the government money and reduced carbon emissions.
"Direct action" cost's money and gives it direct to big business to do basically nothing.
2.5T is a drop in the bucket globally. I mean its what 4 years of american military spending? 100 years of just the Australian defense budget. Less than 2 years of the global military budget (1.6T)
All those people you want to think of need to eat, need to live somewhere, need to live in a world without massive regular storms. Insurance companies and the US military both view climate change as a direct threat to profits and security respectively (hopefully). You think Syria having an exodus is causing problems, wait until you kids are grown up and all of a sudden a few hundred million people living in coastal areas are all forced out by rising sea levels. _________________ Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets
Australian power prices are going up because of bad decisions by power companies. Nothing to do with the Paris agreement. We are paying for a bunch of infrastructure installed for an expected increase in consumption that didn't happen.
Coal and Gas prices will also effect the power price more than a carbon tax.
The sooner we get our grid on to renewables the sooner we can breath a sigh of relief as the power price will stabilize and possibly go down in the long run. A carbon tax will incentivize this.
Sometime in the next decade will will hit 'peak supply' of fossil fuels, the point at which supply can no longer keep up with demand. At that point prices will skyrocket. Any person or country still dependent on fossil fuels at that point will be financially ruined.
That's just the local economic arguments in favor before we start talk to about the environmental cost.
But I will say, as a person working in renewables research I'm far less worried about sea level rise than food security. Food supply growth isn't keeping up with population growth as it is, when the climate change really hits it will most likely reduce global food supply.
Edit: On the plus side, if we get the solar panels I'm working on going we could see a 10x reduction in panel costs! No government incentive or Paris agreement needed, renewables will just be way cheaper.
Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:52 am
Valen Experienced Roboteer
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 4436
Location: Sydney
I'm all for renewable energy but without grid scale storage it's only half the answer. I reckon the govt should build nukes to operate base load. Directly built and operated by the government, out in the middle of nowhere. Keep building renewables as well, price the power to encourage that. Then when either fusion, grid scale storage or just oversupply of renewable + electricity grid transport capacity makes it feasible you can turn them off. If that happens 2 years after the nukes are built call it a win and have a big switch off ceremony.
(That's why they need to be govt owned, if its private they will lobby against renewable and or fusion etc.) _________________ Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum